Either "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or ... there
can be "something from nothing for no reason."

Creationists contend that we are the ones siding with science. We do
not need "hocus pocus" like the Big Bang theory to presume something from
nothing - for no reason.

After all, which is the bigger miracle, that God created the universe
from outside of it, or that nothing (defying the laws of science) created
the universe? Who has more faith: the one who realizes that every
action has an equal and opposite reaction (and therefore this universe
could not have created itself) or the one who thinks that it all magically
exploded into existence?

Evolutionists like to contend that creationists are the ones resorting
to miracles. And they further contend that they side with science. And
yet how, under their theory, did molecules - all by themselves - decide
to become more and more complex? Was gravity (by accident) present at the
Big Bang, or did it evolve itself into existence later? Was it everywhere
at once, or did it start in one place and then spread itself out (for no
reason)? Is the same true for angular momentum? Was all of the light spectrum
originally in existence, or did it "evolve" itself over time? Why are the
laws of science consistent today (given their evolutionary belief in magic
to explain the past)?

Creationists are the ones siding with science. We realize that
the laws of science are consistent. This necessitates a Creator.
We're not like mentally-hiding evolutionists.

If you put an empty box into an attic and left it there for 50 years,
what are the chances - scientifically speaking - that a "Little Bang" would
happen inside that box during the 50 years? Such a belief is not scientific,
now is it?

In contrast here is a theory that is entirely consistent with known
scientific laws for why our universe exists. Genesis 1:1 "In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."